compare_providers

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false) indicate safe read operation. The description adds context by specifying 'compare' and 'specific data type or concept', aligning with annotations. No behavioral traits like response format or limitations are disclosed, but annotations cover safety.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences with an example, no wasted words. Efficiently communicates purpose and usage.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has 2 parameters and no output schema. The description is minimal and lacks any mention of return format or behavior, which is a notable gap given no output schema. It is adequate but not fully complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, with descriptions for both parameters (topic and providers) including examples. The description's example ('shot events') adds minimal extra meaning; baseline 3 is appropriate as schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool compares providers for a specific data type/concept, with an example. The name 'compare_providers' aligns with this purpose, and it is distinct from sibling tools like list_providers and get_provider_docs.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for comparing representations across providers via an example, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, such as mention of alternative tools like search_docs for finding docs. It is clear but not exhaustive.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.